I don’t believe her eitherPiers Morgan understandsthe importance of not apologizingwhen you haven’t done anything wrong:

Meghan Markle wrote to ITV’s boss to complain about Piers Morgan hours before the Good Morning Britain co-host quit on the day the show scored its highest ever ratings and beat BBC Breakfast, it was revealed today.

The Duchess of Sussex insists she was not upset that Mr Morgan said he ‘didn’t believe a word she said’ in her Oprah interview – but was worried about how his comments could affect people attempting to deal with their own mental health problems, an insider told the Press Association.

Standing firm today, Mr Morgan told reporters outside his West London home: ‘If I have to fall on my sword for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview, so be it.’

On Monday Ms Markle went directly to ITV’s CEO Dame Carolyn McCall, the former boss of the (far) left-wing Guardian newspaper, who signed off on the broadcaster’s £1million deal to show the Oprah interview and said yesterday they were ‘dealing with’ the GMB host.

Mr Morgan is understood to have been ordered to apologise – but he refused and quit instead saying he had the right to tell viewers his ‘honestly held opinions’ and declaring: ‘Freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on’.

Good for him. The deceitful, grifting Hellmouth whore simply can’t bear to take any criticism whatsoever, and she has destroyed everything she touched with the exception ofSuits, in which she was a tertiary and mostly irrelevant character. If he holds his ground, Morgan will end up coming out of this kerfluffle on top.

It’s rather amusing how the British press is having such a hard time figuring out why she hates the British Royal Family so much.

Meghan hates Princess Kate for the same reason every moderately attractive girl with ambitions of being the popular hot girl hates the beautiful head cheerleader. It’s nothing more than raw, unmitigated envy. Meghan can’t compete with Kate’s position, class, style, or popularity, and her genetics prevent her from ever being considered “an English Rose”, so naturally she hates the other woman with the passion of ten thousand burning hells.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/03/i-dont-believe-her-either.html

“Divorcity is our Strength”

Anytime I encounter determined use of the word "Diversity", I counter with the word "Divorce-ity".

WE do not need "diversity" in this country, WE need a national divorce from incompatible people.

If the marriage was ever good, I really cannot remember, but WE are well-into the angry language lessons already and inching toward domestic violence. WE badly need a divorce before one of us kills the other. Yeah, WE tried marriage counselors, on the Right and on the Left. Mostly, they were just egging on the fights. WE even tried arbitration, but the Supreme Court refused to hear any of it.

Even Wimmin can understand divorce-ity.

WE may need a required period of separation, WE divide up the property and the States and the Military and the kids, with the bills. But in the end, WE get a Final Decree of Divorce-ity. YOU go your way and I go mine. Go and Do whatever makes you happy. Sleep with the window open, for whomever you are expecting at night. Skip breakfast and finally lose weight. Learn a new hobby, like growing your own food. Take a trip on your own. But lose my number and don’t call me anymore.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/03/when-rhetoric-works.html

Divorcity is our Strength.docx

Published on March 19, 2019

The Mismeasurements of Stephen Jay Gould

written by Russell T. Warne

Stephen Jay Gould, the famous 20th century paleontologist, published his most celebrated work, The Mismeasure of Man, in 1981. Gould’s thesis is that throughout the history of science, prejudiced scientists studying human beings allowed their social beliefs to color their data collection and analysis. Gould believed that this confirmation bias was particularly powerful when a scientists’ beliefs were socially important to them.

The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (1981)

Gould believed this bias was rampant in particular scholarly fields, and the most prominent target for his criticism in The Mismeasure of Man was the study of intelligence, especially IQ testing and the genetics of mental ability. And his analysis was not kind. Gould believed that there was a direct connection between the discredited study of skull measurements and the dawn of intelligence testing in the following generation. “But the IQ…relies upon assumptions…as unsupportable as those underpinning the old hierarchies of skull sizes proposed by nineteenth-century participants.” (Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, p. 210)

It may be surprising to readers to learn that I—a psychologist who researches human intelligence—agree with Gould’s principal thesis. Scientists’ pre-conceived notions about the things they study do guide their data collection and analysis. These beliefs guide scientists in choosing variables to measure, theories to test, statistical methods to employ, and more. This connection between beliefs and methods is a strong one. After all, if you believe that the universe is made of cheese, you’re going to build a cosmic cheese whiz detector.

And though I wish Gould had not targeted my field, The Mismeasure of Man provides a great deal of evidence that scientists’ pre-existing beliefs color their judgment—but not in the way he intended. Rather, the book is a perfect example of the sin it purports to expose in others. Gould’s Marxist political beliefs made him attack intelligence research because he saw it as a threat to his egalitarian social goals. Ironically, it was this allegiance to ideology over data that made Gould himself a classic examplar of a biased scientist.

Gould’s Politics

Gould openly admitted that he had strong social beliefs that colored his scientific views. In the introductory pages of the revised version of The Mismeasure of Man, Gould recounted his laudable efforts to fight discrimination and segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, both in the U.S. and the U.K. He explicitly made the connection between his political and social beliefs and his subject matter:

My original reasons for writing The Mismeasure of Man mixed the personal with the professional. I confess, first of all, to strong feelings on this particular issue. I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. (p. 36)

He also admits that these beliefs are deep-seated and an emotionally important part of his life:

My father became a leftist, along with so many other idealists, during upheavals of the depression, the Spanish Civil War, and the growth of nazism and fascism. He remained politically active . . . and politically committed. I shall always be gratified to the point of tears that, although he never saw The Mismeasure of Man in final form, he lived just long enough to read the galley proofs and know . . . that his scholar son had not forgotten his roots. (p. 39)

Gould’s Trap for Himself

If Gould’s thesis is true for all scientists, and he sometimes wrote as if it is, then there is an obvious problem for him: he would be subject to the same biases, and his conclusions, like those of the scholars targeted in The Mismeasure of Man, would be inherently flawed—including his claim that all scientific analysis is biased. To prevent his thesis undermining itself, Gould performed an intellectual sleight of hand and redefined a critical idea. “Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference,” he wrote. (p. 36) In this way, Gould used one of the rhetorical strategies of postmodernists: to redefine terms so that they do not have their everyday meaning, but rather a preferred meaning so that they do not threaten the person’s cherished conclusion.

By redefining “objectivity” so that he was allowed to still have preferences and biases while maintaining the patina of scientific respectability, Gould attempted to inoculate himself against the inherently contradictory position that he was in. This rhetorical strategy allowed him to separate preference from objectivity and claim that—somehow—he was capable of analyzing data “objectively” without undermining his conclusions. Gould was very much like the Marxist or postmodernist who believes that invisible power structures control every aspect of life—but who must somehow show that the postmodernist is special in her ability to escape the influence of these structures just long enough to see and resist them, thanks to their extraordinary intellectual courage and perspicacity.

In reality, Gould’s pious protestations of objectivity disguised a deceptive analysis of the scholarly record regarding intelligence research. What is astounding is how many people overlooked the contradictions of Gould’s position and accepted the analysis of intelligence research provided by a politically motivated snail expert.

Mismeasure’s Critics

Many scholars have criticized The Mismeasure of Man periodically throughout its 38-year history. For example, James T. Sanders stated that Gould’s attempt to link his argument to anti-racism was a ploy to smear intelligence scholars and Gould’s enemies as evil people. Arthur Jensen argued in 1982 that Gould misrepresented Jensen’s ideas and often demolished strawmen that no intelligence scholar believes, including the boogeyman of “biological determinism.” John Carroll showed that Gould understood neither the purpose nor interpretation of factor analysis (a statistical procedure often used to evaluate data from psychological tests) and that Gould’s attacks on factor analysis do nothing to alter the importance of intelligence tests, nor the mass of evidence—impossible to dispute—that they predict real-life outcomes.

Most criticism of The Mismeasure of Man was confined to the recherché world of psychologists who study intelligence. However, a new debate opened up in 2011 when a team of anthropologists argued that Gould’s analysis of the data on cranium measurements from 19th century scientist Samuel George Morton was flawed. Gould cast Morton as a racist who fudged his data to match his beliefs about white racial superiority because of a supposed larger skull capacity. Instead, the anthropologists argued, it was Gould who manipulated the data to support his biases.

This ignited a series of follow-up articles in the scholarly literature by authors taking a variety of positions regarding Morton’s data and Gould’s interpretations. Weisberg believed that the re-analysis was flawed, and Gould was mostly correct. Kaplan and his colleagues claimed that Morton’s interpretations were flawed, but that Gould was incorrect in believing that he could discern Morton’s actions and motivations. Finally, Mitchell believed that Morton’s data were accurate and that the interpretations were colored by the racism of the era, but the claim that Morton subtly manipulated the data was a fiction created by Gould.

Though still unresolved, the debate shows that a critical analysis of specific sections of The Mismeasure of Man is warranted. After writing an article about Lewis Terman, an important developer of early intelligence tests, I decided that a 23-page section of The Mismeasure of Man would be a valuable section of the book to analyze. This section is Gould’s description and analysis of the Army Beta test, one of the tests that Terman helped create. The Army Beta was used in World War I to screen illiterate recruits for military service.

Having read some of the primary scholarly work about the Army Beta, I knew that some of Gould’s claims were inaccurate. However, I was unprepared for the level of pervasive deception that I encountered when I carefully checked Gould’s claims against the historical record. Moreover, I discovered overwhelming evidence that any pretense of Gould being “objective”—even if defined as “fair treatment of data”—is a farce. In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould elevates his biases to the status of uncontestable facts and to great lengths to hide the truth from his readers.

Army Beta examinees during World War I. The other three images are of examiners giving instructions and demonstrating how to complete the test. Source: Yerkes, 1921.

A Case Study in Gouldian Deception

The distortions of the scholarly record regarding the Army Beta range from the relatively benign to deliberate falsehoods. It would be impractical to catalog them all here, so I encourage interested readers to read my full analysis. What makes the analysis important is not the Army Beta itself—the test has not been used in research or practice for decades. Rather, Gould’s discussion of the Army Beta is emblematic of the way he distorted evidence, ignored data that contradicted his opinions, drew unwarranted conclusions, and even lied to his readers.

One of Gould’s favorite techniques for misleading his readers was exaggerating the importance of any unfavorable information about intelligence testing. For example, Gould emphasizes that testing conditions were sometimes far from ideal. Compared to the orderly testing programs that 21st century students experience, the administration of the Army Beta (and its companion test for literate men, the Army Alpha) was disorganized and unsatisfactory. The army testing program was underfunded, and the speed at which it started meant that available facilities were often not large enough to accommodate all examinees. Additionally, there was often a shortage of qualified examining officers. None of this is in dispute.

Gould seized on this information to portray the conditions as “…something of a shambles, if not a disgrace” (p. 231) and claimed they invalidated the test results for many men. Gould’s supporting evidence is a single quote from “the chief tester at one camp” in which the officer complained that testing rooms were too overcrowded for some men to hear and understand the instructions. However, Gould cherry picked this quote (which was not from the chief tester at all) and ignored 13 favorable comments from officers at the same camp and the unanimously favorable opinions of the commanding officers at every camp.

The technique of building a negative conclusion on the basis of the slightest unfavorable data is epitomized in Gould’s analysis of the Army Beta instructions, which he called “Draconian” and “diabolical.” He also wrote that “…most of the men must have ended up either utterly confused or scared shitless.” (p. 235) However, his support for this claim is a single secondary source that states some men struggled with producing written responses to the test questions. For Gould, “struggling” is the same as being “scared shitless.”

Gould consistently ignored evidence that contradicted his claim that early intelligence test creators gathered meaningless data using garbage tests. He neglected to mention that the test’s creators explicitly permitted administrators to give instructions and commands in foreign languages because this would threaten his belief that the Army Beta was particularly unfair to immigrants. (Italian and Russian, which were the two most common languages for immigrants in the U.S. at the time, were specifically mentioned by the test’s authors as being acceptable.) Gould also did not tell his readers about the strong evidence that Army Beta test scores predicted military job performance, a topic of several chapters in the only primary source that Gould consulted.

Gould also outright lied in several passages in The Mismeasure of Man. Among the falsehoods were:

• The army test creators had a “…poor opinion of what Beta recruits might understand by virtue of their stupidity.” (p. 236)
• The claim that “vast numbers of men” earned zero scores on the Army Beta. (p. 247)
• His statement that extremely low-scoring men had their scores “adjusted” so that they would receive a negative number for a score and that these men were “too stupid to do any items,” and were “dullards.” (p. 246)
• It was “ludicrous to believe that [the Army] Beta measured any internal state deserving the label intelligence.” (p. 240)

None of these statements is supported by the historical record. Indeed, in every case there is strong evidence to indicate the opposite is true.

Gould’s analysis of the Army Beta is not central to his book’s thesis, and if it were removed from future editions his main arguments would stand. But the tactics he used to impugn the creators of the Army Beta are used in every chapter to malign intelligence research. Throughout the book, Gould showed no compunction about exaggerating facts that support his beliefs, omitting important contradicting information, and lying to his readers.

All this shows that, far from a “fair treatment of data,” Gould’s analysis was guided entirely by his preconceived notions about intelligence research, which he saw as socially dangerous and irredeemably flawed. Inadvertently, Gould proved his own thesis correct: sometimes scientists are guided more by their beliefs than any data.

It is likely that Gould thought that his “rhetorical strategies,” if I can call them that (which have been outlined in more detail elsewhere), were justified because of his high-minded politics. In this way, he was not unlike the pious religious fanatic who believes that inventing stories of miracles is acceptable if it strengthens the faith of others and adds more believers to the flock. Instead of “lying for God,” though, Gould was lying for social justice.

For those who share Gould’s political and social views, there are better strategies for promoting an egalitarian agenda than linking it to dubious claims about scientific research. For example, people who worry that the new field of genomics could revive eugenics and fear for its impact on the most vulnerable members of our society could work to strengthen human rights legislation and ensure that any genetic advances are available to all segments of society, not just the wealthy. People who worry about the links between intelligence markers, such as IQ test scores, and life outcomes could support policies and technology that make society more accommodating for people with lower intelligence. For instance, state bureaucracies could make it simpler for people to navigate the red tape if they want to claim benefits or get access to affordable housing.

One final note: though I see Gould as the ultimate example of bias in the history of intelligence research, I am not exempt from my own biases. This is why in my article about Gould’s discussion of the Army Beta in The Mismeasure of Man my coauthors and I are completely transparent. We invite readers to check our interpretation of the primary sources (heavily referenced throughout the article) we relied upon to research the Army Beta. We also administered the test to a modern sample to examine whether it functioned like other intelligence tests, and we pre-registered our hypotheses and expectations and uploaded our data to a public repository. We believe that minimizing bias is best accomplished through transparency in data collection and analysis, rather than spurious claims of “objectivity” or intellectual courage.

Russell T. Warne is an associate professor of psychology at Utah Valley University. He conducts research on advanced academic programs, human intelligence, and methodology. Follow him at @russwarne.

FILED UNDER: Top Stories

TAGGED WITH: Intelligence Research, Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould

https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/the-mismeasurements-of-stephen-jay-gould/

The Mismeasurements of Stephen Jay Gould.docx

‘Mask Burning Parties’ are Triggering the Left (Wing Fascists)

And It Is a Glorious Sight to Behold

March 6, 2021

by Kyle Becker

Normal Americans are over the masks. They are over the lockdowns. They are over the media hysteria.

Who is not “over” all of that is the radical left (wing fascists), which desperately wants Americans to remain paralyzed with fear and completely under the ‘lock down’ control of the Democratic Party.

A New York (Lying) Times reporter has brought attention to a ‘mask burning party” on the Idaho Capitol steps.

The reaction of the left to these videos is either downright ghoulish or steeped in derision.

“Darwinism in action,” one user tweeted. “A lot of these people are the same people who will refuse the vaccine. Their population/communities will be culled over time due to this rejection of science. I don’t say this with malice. It’s just a fact. I feel for the innocent children.”

“This is some sick stuff right here,” another said. “Guess what else has gone down since people have been wearing masks? Flu, colds, respiratory infections. I hope one day these kids will be embarrassed by this and completely own their parents for their ignorance.”

“What the hell does the rest of the world think when they see things like this?” another added. “We look like a bunch of ignorant hicks jfc.”

“When the next virus comes, and make no mistake, there WILL be another one, and it has a higher mortality than Covid, these people will make certain that as many people as possible die from it,” another commented. “Even if the bodies start to rot in the streets. They will not give a single f***.”

“These parents should be arrested,” David Badass of the New Civil Rights Privileges Movement added.

“The scope of what they are teaching their children includes being anti-science, being selfish, not caring about human life, it’s ok to break the law, and your ‘freedom’ takes priority over other people’s right to live.”

Conservatives, however, welcomed the sight of people taking off their masks and throwing them on the ash heap of history:

Let’s also briefly talk about the “science,” a subject that radical leftists are grossly uninterested in, much less than their vapid moral preening.

The science is not “settled” that masks even work to prevent the spread among the general public. There is no strong evidence that such masks or lockdowns even slow the spread, in terms of cross-national or state-level data.

The viral pandemic exploded in America’s blue states, regardless of mask mandates, while red states that did not have mask mandates compare very favorably. The top four states in deaths per capita were blue states with strong lockdown policies and mask mandates.

Image credit: Worldometers

Now, we are seeing a massive drop off in infection rates, mortality and hospitalizations, after peaking just after Biden’s election certification.

… left (wing fascism) can freak out all it wants that it is losing control over people’s daily lives as the coronavirus pandemic recedes. If you want to show that you are truly free, organize a mask burning party in your own community and upload the video to Twitter.

https://beckernews.com/mask-burning-parties-are-triggering-the-left-and-it-is-a-glorious-sight-to-behold-37519/

Mask Burning Parties are Triggering the Left-Wiing Fascists.docx

Book Review: "Disintegration" by Andrei Martyanov

Indicators of the Coming American Collapse

THE SAKER • MARCH 1, 2021

• 2,100 WORDS • 11 COMMENTS • REPLY

This is the third book by Andrei Martyanov that I am reviewing, the first one was “Book Review – Losing Military Supremacy: the Myopia of American Strategic Planning by Andrei Martyanov”, while the second one was “Book Review: Andrei Martyanov’s The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs”. I also interviewed Andrei about this second volume here. The book I am reviewing today, “Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse” can be pre-ordered from Clarity Press here and from Amazon here.

If the first two volumes mostly focused on issues of force planning and military power, this third volume addresses the wider context and shows example after example that the United States is not only failing at its attempts to remain a world hegemon, but the US is, in fact, in a process we could call “full-spectrum collapse” or, like Martyanov, simply “disintegration”. Specifically, the book looks into the manifestation of disintegration in the following spheres:

1. Consumption

2. Affluenza

3. Geoeconomics

4. Energy

5. Making Things

6. Western Elites

7. Losing the Arms Race

8. Empire Über Alles – Including Americans

9. To Be or Not To Be

10. Conclusion: Not Exceptional, Not Free, Not Prosperous – Not America?

These are tantalizing subject headings which I will not further describe because I really want to really encourage as many people as possible to read this book. Why?

Mainly because while Martyanov’s first two books were dealing primarily with military and geostrategic issues, this one goes much wider and looks at the wider socio-cultural reasons which create the context for such a dramatic lack of real military capabilities.

A month ago I wrote an article I called “Zone B Exists, Thus There Is Hope, I Promise You!” in which I tried to show that the pseudo “reality” in which most people in the West are artificially kept in by the most effective (and insidious) propaganda machine in history is not the “real reality” at all! Not only that, but that most of the planet has been living in “Zone B” for quite a while. In fact, this “Zone B” has already moved on, even if the legacy ziomedia never reports about this.

Well, you can think of Martyanov’s books like the perfect example of a “Zone B book”: not only does Martyanov debunk most of the myths of the US propaganda machine, he contrasts these delusions with examples from the real world.

You could buy only one or two of Martyanov’s books, and each of them stands on its own, but I really think of them as a trilogy which should be read and discussed by as many people in the West as possible. In fact, you could think of them as each a kind of “crash course on debunking delusions and returning to reality”. The overarching message of all three volumes is this: “People of the United States, your ruling elites are lying to you just like the chamber orchestra on the Titanic that was playing music while the supposedly “unsinkable” Titanic was sinking!”.

Interestingly, Martyanov adds that, of all nations, Russians understand these processes better than anybody else because they too suffered the same fate during the “democratic nightmare of the 1990s” (I would add that descendants of White Russians like myself also remember the “democratic nightmare” under Kerenskii in 1917). Martyanov writes:

“The collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic catastrophe which followed taught Russians a lot, and also left an aftertaste of the humiliation of losing power – a process the United States is going through right now”

Truth be told, Martyanov is hardly the first person to have mentioned the uncanny similarities between the Soviet Union of the late 80s, or the Russia of the 90s, with the US of the last two decades (or more). For example, Martyanov mentions Dmitry Orlov whose many books have looked into what he calls the “stages of collapse” (financial, economic, political, social, cultural and, later, he added ecological) and have become a precious analytical tool for many researchers. Many decades earlier, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whom Martyanov intensely dislikes, also often mentioned that the West of the 80s reminded him of the Russia of the early 20th century. This is just to illustrate Martyanov’s point that,

“Speaking in layman’s terms, the Russians get it. They, unlike any other people in the world, can relate to what the United States is going through right now. Russians can read the signs extremely well, while the U.S. elite not only has no experience with it, but is completely insulated from understanding it. This is America’s tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. Not only is America’s crisis systemic, but its elites are uncultured, badly educated and mesmerized by decades of their own propaganda, which in the end, they accept as a reality”.

I couldn’t agree more. I would also add that those Russians who write books and articles desperately trying to warn the people of the US of real catastrophe taking place do that not because they are hostile to the United States, but precisely because they are sympathetic to the people of the US. The flag-waving pseudo-patriots who accuse these Russians of being “anti-American” simply don’t understand the “evil Russians” they hate so much (mostly because modern Russia under Putin has been fantastically successful, in spite of sanctions, threats, subversion, etc., while the US is in agony – that is why these folks are willing to believe anything bad, no matter how self-evidently stupid, about Russia and/or Putin).

Yes, of course, Russians hate and despise the US ruling Nomenklatura, just as they despised their own, Soviet, Nomenklatura. But that in no way implies what many mistake for “anti-American” hostility.

In my almost 58 years of life I have been blessed with the chance to travel a lot and speak six or so languages, yet I have never come across what I would call “anti-Americanism”. Even in countries supposedly hostile to the US the actual focus of the anger and disgust of people are the actions of the AngloZionist Empire, the ugly parasite feeding off its US host. Take a country like, say, Brazil. Anti “yankee” feelings have always been strong there, yet Brazilian musicians are known to beautifully fuse US and Brazilian music (see this superb example). The same is true elsewhere: people hate US policies, but very rarely the people of the US. Right now, judging by the Runet and emails from friends, Russians mostly feel pity for the people of the US, not hate, and this is so because they “get it” as Martyanov correctly states. Of course, there are stupid and/or bigoted people in all countries and I am sure that there are those who hate the United States as a country, but I am confident that this is a small minority. There is one interesting category left: those who become critical of the US society after having lived in the US; a famous example of that would be Sayyid Qutb.

None of that is meant to whitewash all the violence and ugliness of the short but extremely violent US history. But violence and ugliness exist in the history of probably every country on the planet (there sure was plenty of violence and ugliness in the history of Russia!). True, the US was probably one of the most bloody and violent regimes in history, but that violence ought to be attributed to imperialism and capitalism and not to something unique to the US (the British Empire was possibly the most criminally violent in history). Even more important to the understanding of US history is that most of its violence had its roots not in national or racial causes, but in the many social or, better, class struggles which peppered the history of the US. Again, discussions of class issues have been comprehensively blotted out from all the school books in Zone A, depriving those who had the misfortune to be educated in the West from one of the most important tools of political and economic analysis.

The importance of the above cannot be overstated and this is why Martyanov comes back to the topic of the education of the western ruling classes over and over again. In the last pages of Disintegration Martyanov writes:

Thus, no viable ideas or solutions to the current unfolding economic, social and cultural catastrophe can originate within these elites, who see the world only through the Wall Street and New York Times lenses. Real intellect, courage and integrity are simply not there: they all have been traded for the perks and sinecures of what many correctly describe as the Washington D.C. blob, whose only purpose for existence is self-perpetuation.

I would only add that there is a karmic irony in the fact that it is precisely because these ruling classes have no other purpose in life than self-perpetuation (and consumption, I would add) that they are driving themselves, and the country which they exploit, into extinction.

Conclusion: these are “must read” books for all of Zone A! (and even Zone B!)

Finally, it is precisely because Martyanov’s books are like “messages from Zone B” that I urge every person living in the US or in the EU to read them. As I said, each of these books stands on its own, but together they reach a kind of intellectual critical mass which makes them truly “must read” books, especially for those who hate their ruling regime but love their country.

These books are all pretty short, very well written, they have decent (but not perfect) indexes and are an easy read. If you want to get a superb summation of what is really going on in the United States (as opposed to the frankly laughable AngloZionist propaganda or the inchoate and outright childish slogans of the flag-waving “Trump patriots”) – read these books. If you have brainwashed friends, give them any (or, better, all of) these books: they are like a “crash course in reality studies”. If you have family members who still believe all the nonsense about “American exceptionalism”, challenge them to read these books.

Folks living in Zone B would also immensely benefit from reading Martyanov’s books. Not because these books will tell them much they weren’t already at least vaguely aware of, but because these books are also a very truthful “state of the United States” kind of SITREP. In my experience, while most folks (at least the well-read ones) in Zone B do mostly understand that the Empire is dead (or very close to death) and while they also feel the US are undergoing a massive internal catastrophe, most of these folks in Zone B do not fully appreciate the magnitude and severity of these crises. For them too Martyanov’s books will be an eye opener. This is also why I hope that all three of Martyanov’s books will be quickly translated into Russian: they will become instant blockbusters and, what is even more important, they will be read in Russian academies and universities. French and Spanish are another two languages I hope that these books will be translated into.

But, most of all, I hope (against any common sense or logic) that these books will be read by truly patriotic US officers, force planners, analysts, political decision-makers, etc. Right now, there is a real threat of these folks stumbling into a shooting war with Russia which the US will never survive (nor would Russia or much of the rest of the world, of course). But even if by some miracle this potential war remains non-nuclear, the US will still be destroyed, at least as a functioning country, by Russian conventional capabilities. This is the single biggest danger and possible disaster authors like Martyanov are so desperately trying to prevent: a major war caused by a clueless ruling Nomenklatura involving a country (the US) which has never fought a defensive war in its history and which has never experienced real warfare, especially not against a competent adversary. I can only add that in case of a conventional war, Russia now has the means to defend not only her airspace, but a conceptual “Russian border proximity zone” of roughly 800km-1000km (and this range is steadily increasing). The US cannot. Neither can the EU or NATO. And for all the silly MIC+Pentagon promises of super-duper missiles, this is not something which will change in the short to medium time frame.

The more people in the US realize this, the better the chances avoid a terrible catastrophe. Hence the timely importance of Andrei Martyanov’s books.

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/book-review-disintegration-by-andrei-martyanov/

Disintegration by Andrei Martyanov.docx

Monday, 1 March 2021

Happy Birthday Birdemic: One year into the global totalitarian coup…

It was a year ago that I noticed that the global totalitarian coup had-happened; with the excuse of the Birdemic – but clearly never caused by it.

I had been expecting something of the kind for a few months; but I had supposed the fake-rationale would be some ‘climate emergency’ rather than a supposed-germ.

So… It was a bit more than a year ago that we in the UK began a three-week ‘lockdown’ – just to ‘flatten the curve’ and spread the load of cases…

Yet, of course (because this was a coup, not a disease); restrictions/ compulsions on life have never been removed and are still increasing – and this will continue.

And, of course, a year down the line; still, almost nobody has noticed the coup.

Everything has changed; yet, for the mass majority of the population; nothing has been learned.

One can perceive this indestructible obliviousness in all kinds of human interaction. And if people have not noticed yet, they never will notice.

The World is willingly, indeed aggressively, participating in a system of unconstrained lies and delusions, with no understanding and no end in sight (except, sooner or later, collapse and mega-death).

These are the plain facts of our situation: now, as then.

Therefore, there is no point is talking about "what can be done", practically, to reverse or even ameliorate the situation – because the magnitude of scale and profound depth of the global situation itself is utterly invisible and denied.

(Including by nearly-all of those who affect to address ‘the crisis’, when they are merely quibbling about sub-micro-issues.)

What has happened in the past year dwarfs in scope anything that has happened in human history: thus our main difficulty is in sheerly acknowledging and comprehending it.

Happy Birthday Birdemic.

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2021/03/happy-birthday-birdemic-one-year-into.html

One year into the global totalitarian coup.docx

The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

C.J. HOPKINS • FEBRUARY 23, 2021

• 1,600 WORDS • 109 COMMENTS • REPLY

So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use — that process normally takes several years — so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly a historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive, the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want … cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,” “oppositional defiant disorder,” and other “conduct disorders” and “personality disorders.” Who knows? In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains. The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile, but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare. And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!

OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, “critical thinking isn’t helping.” In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above. Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative and deplatform the authors of such content, or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”

For example, Children’s Health Defense, which has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines” and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.” In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable!”

Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database and other such systems around the world. Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe, repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary.

Here are just a few examples of their handiwork …

· In Norway, 23 elderly people died after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. However, according to Reuters’ “fact-checkers,” it turns out, old people just die sometimes, especially in nursing homes, from a variety of causes … unless they haven’t been vaccinated, in which case they definitely died of Covid, regardless of what they actually died of. For example, a 99-year-old man suffering from dementia and emphysema, who tested negative for the virus three times, was added to the “Covid deaths” figures because a nursing home doctor “assumed” it was Covid (which GloboCap has expressly instructed him to do).

· In Germany, 13 of 40 residents of one nursing home died after being vaccinated, but this was just a “tragic coincidence,” which had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccine.

· In Spain, in another “tragic coincidence,” 46 nursing home residents who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine died within the course of one month. A further 28 of the 94 residents and 12 staff members subsequently tested positive.

· In Florida, a healthy middle-aged doctor died from an unusual blood disorder two weeks after receiving the vaccine, but, according to the experts, the sudden onset of this rare immunological blood disorder (i.e., immune thrombocytopenia) “should not be interpreted as linked to the vaccine,” and was probably just a total coincidence.

· In California, a 60-year-old X-ray technologist received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. A few hours later he had trouble breathing. He was hospitalized and died four days later. His widow says she’s not ready at this point to link her husband’s death to the vaccine. “I’m not putting any blame on Pfizer,” she said, “or on any other pharmaceutical company.” So, probably just another coincidence.

· A 78-year-old woman in California died immediately after being vaccinated, but her death was not related to the vaccine, health officials assured the public. “(She) received an injection of the Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer around noon. While seated in the observation area after the injection, [she] complained of feeling discomfort and while being evaluated by medical personnel she lost consciousness.” Despite the sudden death of his wife, her husband intends to receive a second dose.

· A former Detroit news anchor died just one day after receiving the vaccine, but it was probably just a coincidental stroke, which the “normal side effects of the vaccine may have masked.”

· Also in Michigan, a 90-year-old man died the day after receiving the vaccine, but, again, this was just a tragic coincidence. As Dr. David Gorski explained, “the baseline death rate of 90-year-olds is high because they’re 90 years old,” which makes perfect sense … unless, of course, they died of Covid, in which case their age and underlying conditions make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

· In Kentucky, two nuns at a monastery died, and more than two dozen others tested positive, in a sudden “Covid-19 outbreak” that began two days after the nuns were vaccinated. The monastery had been completely closed to visitors and Covid-free up to that point, but the nuns were old and had “health issues,” and so on.

· In Virginia, a 58-year-old grandmother died within hours after receiving the vaccine, but, as Facebook’s “fact checkers” prominently pointed out, it had to be just another coincidence, because the “vaccines have been tested for safety extensively.”

And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example …

OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda … even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts. But there’s an information war on, folks! You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination! The fate of the human species depends on it! And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volumes I and II of his Consent Factory Essays are published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

https://www.unz.com/chopkins/the-vaccine-disinformation-war/

The Vaccine (Dis)Information War.docx

Facts about Covid-19

Updated: February 2021;
Languages: CN, CZ, DE, EN, EO, ES, FR, GR, HE, HU, IT, KO, MS, NL, JP, PL, PT, RO, RU, SE, TR

Fully referenced facts about covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below).

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview

1. Lethality: According to the latest immunological studies, the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) of covid-19 in the general population is about 0.1% to 0.5% in most countries, which is most closely comparable to the medium influenza pandemics of 1957 and 1968.

2. Treatment: For people at high risk or high exposure, early or prophylactic treatment is essential to prevent progression of the disease. According to numerous international studies, early outpatient treatment of covid may reduce hospitalizations and deaths by about 80%.

3. Age profile: The median age of covid deaths is over 80 years in most Western countries (but 78 in the US) and only about 5% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of covid mortality is therefore comparable to normal mortality, but increases it proportionally.

4. Nursing homes: In many Western countries, up to two thirds of all covid deaths have occurred in nursing homes, which require targeted and humane protection. In some cases it is not clear whether the residents really died of covid or of weeks of stress and isolation.

5. Excess mortality: Up to 30% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by covid, but by the effects of lockdowns, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 40% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.

6. Antibodies: By summer 2020, global hotspots such as New York City and Bergamo had reached antibody seroprevalence levels of approximately 25%. Capital cities such as Madrid, London and Stockholm were around 15%. Large parts of Europe and the US, however, were still below 5%. Above about 30%, a significant slowdown of the infection process has been observed.

7. Symptoms: Up to 40% of all infected persons show no symptoms, about 80% show at most mild symptoms, and about 95% show at most moderate symptoms and do not require hospitalization. Mild cases may be due to protective T-cells from earlier common cold coronavirus infections.

8. Long covid: About 10% of symptomatic people report post-acute or long covid, i.e. symptoms that last for several weeks or months. This also affects younger and previously healthy people with a strong immune response. The post-viral syndrome is known from severe influenza, too.

9. Transmission: According to current knowledge, the main routes of transmission of the virus are indoor aerosols and droplets produced when speaking or coughing, while outdoor aerosols as well as most object surfaces appear to play a minor role.

10. Masks: There is still little to no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of cloth face masks in the general population, and the introduction of mandatory masks couldn’t contain or slow the epidemic in most countries. If used improperly, masks may increase the risk of infection.

11. Children and schools: In contrast to influenza, the risk of disease and transmission in children is very low in the case of covid. There was and is therefore no medical reason for the closure of elementary schools or other measures specifically aimed at children.

12. Contact tracing: A WHO study of 2019 on measures against influenza pandemics concluded that from a medical perspective, contact tracing is “not recommended in any circumstances”. Contact tracing apps on cell phones have also failed in most countries.

13. PCR tests: The virus test kits used internationally may in some cases produce false positive and false negative results or react to non-infectious virus fragments from a previous infection. In this regard, the so-called cycle threshold or ct value is an important parameter.

14. Medical mismanagement: In the US and some other countries, fatal medical mismanagement of some covid patients occurred due to questionable financial incentives and inappropriate protocols. In most countries, covid in-hospital mortality has since decreased significantly.

15. Lockdowns: In contrast to early border controls, lockdowns have had no significant effect on the pandemic. Rather, the WHO warned that lockdowns have caused a “terrible global catastrophe” and according to the UN, lockdowns may put the livelihood of 1.6 billion people at acute risk and may push an additional 150 million children into poverty.

16. Sweden: In Sweden, covid mortality without a lockdown is comparable to a strong influenza season and close to the EU average. About 70% of Swedish deaths occurred in nursing facilities and the median age of Swedish covid deaths is about 84 years.

17. Media: The reporting of many media has been unprofessional, has maximized fear and panic in the population and has led to a massive overestimation of the lethality and mortality of covid. Some media even used manipulative pictures and videos to dramatize the situation.

18. Vaccines: Due to their rapid development, little is yet known about the long-term effectiveness and safety of the covid vaccines. Following several deaths, Norway advises against RNA vaccination in frail persons over 80 years of age. Some other groups of people are also advised against RNA vaccination because of possible complications.

19. Virus origin: The origin of the new corona virus remains unclear, but the best evidence currently points to a covid-like pneumonia incident in a Chinese mine in 2012, whose virus samples were collected, stored and researched by the Virology Institute in Wuhan (WIV).

20. Surveillance: NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the covid pandemic may be used to expand global surveillance. In several parts of the world, the population is being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach during lockdowns.

See also

1. On the treatment of Covid-19

2. Studies on Covid-19 lethality

3. The evidence on face masks

4. On post-acute (“long”) Covid

5. On the origin of SARS-CoV-2

https://swprs.org/covid19-facts/

Facts about Covid-19.docx

Talent Returned to God: Rush Limbaugh

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, February 19, 2021

(Credit Image: © SMG via ZUMA Wire)

The title of the late Jerome Tuccille’s book about libertarianism was called It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. For conservatives, the same could be said of Rush Limbaugh. Neocon or paleo, white advocate or “movement conservative,” Christian or agnostic, capitalist or protectionist, it’s hard to find anyone on the Right who didn’t spend some time listening to the EIB Network.

I began listening in high school. No one told me about Rush Limbaugh. I wasn’t politically active. I just found him scanning the stations, as I imagine most others did.

Rush (I can’t help calling him “Rush”) was always on in the background during my first job in the conservative movement. Later, I’d go to work for the man who helped write his second book, See, I Told You So. For more than a decade in “the movement,” someone would email me at least one Limbaugh clip a week. These people would have wildly divergent views, but they all listened to him. I never thought about it at the time, but Rush Limbaugh shaped the ideological sphere that I worked in. Without him, no conservative movement, and without a conservative movement, no me — or those like me.

However, I never read Rush’s books, I never considered myself a “dittohead,” I wasn’t a dutiful listener, I never called in, and I didn’t even know Rush Limbaugh had a TV show until, for some reason, I read Al Franken’s subtly titled Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. But he was just always there. For those who truly were fans, it must seem as though a planet has vanished.

When I heard he had died, I was astonished that it actually hurt — as if I knew the man. Rush had the skilled host’s ability to forge a real connection with his listeners. It felt like I knew him. He was the soundtrack for a young adulthood spent in conservatism. Older conservatives must feel this more intensely.

Robert Hampton accurately notes that Rush Limbaugh was the rare figure who could unite most of the Right. We can tie ourselves into ideological knots trying to explain this, but I think his secret was simple. He really had “talent on loan from God.”

It wasn’t about ideology. His ability to inform and entertain was why, during any long drive between the hours of noon and three, I’d find myself desperately searching for whatever station was carrying Rush. He had to be there somewhere. He’d make a road trip bearable.

Radio is hard work, and Rush Limbaugh was a master with a voice made for it. He somehow managed to use brutal humor with just enough irony that he didn’t sound angry. He sounded like he was having a good time, and therefore, listening to him was a good time.

You truly appreciated his artistry if you tried the competition. When Al Franken tried to start liberal talk radio with “Air America,” it was embarrassing. The message was awful, of course, but that wasn’t the problem. It was the dead air, awkward pauses, and lack of preparation. Bad radio, just like bad conversation, is painful to sit through.

Credit Image: © Mariela Lombard/ZUMA Press

But it wasn’t just talent. Radio seemed to come so easily to Rush because he clearly worked hard for every program. That in itself is a lesson for success no matter what your calling.

Still, we have to ask two questions: What did Rush Limbaugh do with his incredible power and what will happen to the conservative movement now?

On race, Rush Limbaugh went about as far as you can go and stay on the air. I recall several attempts to get him kicked off or go after his advertisers because of “offensive” comments. He always survived. It wasn’t just because his assistant “Bo Snerdley” (James Golden) was black, but because Limbaugh had a way of talking about racial differences that was politically incorrect but dodged the core issue.

Rush would cover racial double standards, crime, drugs, and immigration (the last, far too late in his career), but would rarely talk about race explicitly. Part of his mastery was an ability to shift a conversation into “safe” territory after a dangerous beginning. He knew the limits. That’s a gift, but also a failing. What’s the point of having a platform if you won’t use it for something important?

What kept Rush Limbaugh from being truly mainstream was pointing out that the media were rooting for a black NFL quarterback. In 2003, he lost his job as a commentator at ESPN after he said black quarterback Donovan McNabb wasn’t that great. Now, journalists regularly tell us that Colin Kaepernick, who isn’t nearly as good as Donovan McNabb, should be on the field as a kind of moral duty. Some even compare the thoroughly mediocre Mr. Kaepernick to Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL player ever. If anything, Rush’s observations and the reaction to them were prophetic.

Oct 2, 2003; Philadelphia, PA; Hannah Sassaman with the Prometheus Radio Project protests against Rush Limbaugh outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where Limbaugh was the keynote speaker for the National Association of Broadcasters. (Credit Image: © Alejandro A. Alvarez / Philadelphia Daily News / ZUMAPRESS.com)

Despite his timidity on race, Rush Limbaugh drove people our way, especially in his later years. When, during the 2016 campaign, he read a Sam Francis essay on the air, it was like a gear shift for the movement. I felt goosebumps as I wrote a news story about Rush reading Sam Francis. Suddenly, this wasn’t “conservatism” anymore; we were “nationalists.” I can’t imagine someone like Sean Hannity making that shift.

But what did he accomplish? He helped create conservative media and a “movement,” but that movement didn’t accomplish much. Peter Brimelow argues that Rush was largely silent on immigration at a time when it could have made a difference. Rush connected with the American working man, but he told them to vote for the party of neoliberal economics, foreign wars, and faux populism. He was a safety valve, taking the justified anger of American whites and wasting it on unimportant battles.

There was the occasional offensive comment or culture war skirmish, but Rush Limbaugh never explained to listeners that the real issue is race. This is ironic because he lost his job at ESPN because of the race taboo. I suspect he really wanted to be “mainstream.” He made it and then lost it; maybe this cowed him.

Once you have nothing to lose, you’re free. We’ve all known for a long time that Rush Limbaugh was dying, and he knew it too. It’s to Donald Trump’s credit that he honored the man when he could. We all knew it was goodbye.

February 4, 2020: Rush Limbaugh receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom. President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (Credit Image: © White House/ZUMA Wire/ZUMAPRESS.com)

I’m forgiving (perhaps too forgiving) of those in prominent positions who see but don’t speak, because they think they need to build a platform, bank account, or professional credibility before they can tell the truth. I don’t tell people to charge the machine guns.

But what about Rush Limbaugh? The jackals are spitting on his grave and calling him racist anyway. Why not go out fighting? Why not call on his listeners to battle for their people and the birthright that was stolen from them?

I suspect that Rush, with that optimism of his, really believed in colorblind conservatism, though he may have had some misgivings. Just before the election, the last time I listened to him, he said that perhaps “we” had lost the country. Rush was usually so optimistic that this struck me, but it was only a passing comment. To admit that the issue was race, not “conservatives” versus “liberals,” would have been a repudiation of everything he’d preached for decades. Few men can do that. I don’t blame Rush.

Over the years, I’ve heard countless conservatives say we have “lost” the country. I always ask them what do we do now? They have no answer. They are wedded to a system that is destroying us. Rush didn’t have an answer, either.

What will conservatives do now? Conservatism will probably be worse without him. Charlie Sykes, a supposed conservative whose career consists of bashing conservatives, said on state media outlet NPR that Limbaugh’s legacy was “playful bigotry.” At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf said Limbaugh hurt conservatism and fueled “divisive racial paranoia.” Peggy Noonan, incredibly, is using Rush’s death to suggest bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” because America is now “more polarized, more bitter, less stable.” This would drive conservatives off the air.

We’re getting different variations of “The Conservative Case Against Conservatives,” with Regime mouthpieces telling whites that we have a moral duty to surrender our country in the name of social peace. The surrender always goes one way. Conservatives are willing to increase censorship, thus denying the GOP base even symbolic victories, even as elected Republicans push unpopular economic policies.

Whatever his failings, Rush at least told conservatives that they were right to feel they were being treated unfairly. He told them the media really was deceiving them. He showed whites that the system is hypocritical about “equality.” Almost no other conservatives go that far.

Some say that Rush Limbaugh dumbed down the conservative movement, but he was a talk show host. It wasn’t his job to promote intellectual conservatism. He delivered simple, solid messages with humor and skill, and that’s more important than writing another weighty tome only your friends will read.

The real problem is that conservative intellectuals are cowards who have no theory of power, no answers for contemporary problems, and no program except nostalgia. There are plenty of American intellectuals on the Right with sharp insights, but they are mostly castaways from “the movement.” The American conservative movement is defined by its purges of interesting, original, and brilliant intellectuals in favor of gelded embarrassments desperate for a pat on the head from journalists.

Raw populist energy, and even inchoate opposition to “liberal elites” is more productive and intellectually defensible than almost anything National Review has produced since it purged Peter Brimelow and Joe Sobran. The concept of the political is defined by the difference between friend and enemy, and Rush Limbaugh helped Americans make that distinction, at least partially. I’ll take Rush over self-described “intellectual conservatives” any day. A rant from one of his callers is more insightful than a typical National Review editorial.

There may be some hope. I note with satisfaction that one of those who may inherit the golden EIB microphone is Mark Steyn, another writer too good for National Review. Mr. Steyn is no Rush on the air (no one is) but he’s a great writer and is at least aware of the demographic crisis facing the West. Perhaps he can help steer his audience in a good direction.

On television, we have the lonely voice of Tucker Carlson attacking our hostile elites and broaching topics no one else will. We also have some movements and platforms emerging from the wreckage of the Trump Presidency, including Revolver and a revitalized Chronicles.

On social media, the Right has been held back through deplatforming. If there were no corporate repression, media podcasting would belong to the Right; Patreon-socialists like Chapo Trap House are a stale echo of pioneers like TheRightStuff.biz. With free speech, we win.

It’s not just because we have something to say. It’s because those on the Right aren’t trapped by political correctness or victimhood competition. We’re free to be funny. Rush’s slashing, scornful, sarcastic approach that mocked respectability turned him into America’s Anchorman. It’s how he won an audience of millions. We all draw on his approach, even without realizing it. Rush was devastating on the attack, but he did it with a smile. Instead of a crazed man ranting about the world going to hell, Rush had you roaring with laughter as he casually dismantled his foes — having done careful research in his few hours off the air.

Ultimately, I don’t think Rush could reconcile his beliefs with what is necessary. America will not be saved by conservatives. Conservatives can’t win. I wonder if they even want to win. The best among them, such as the late Roger Scruton, want to live in a certain kind of society but lack the will to do what is necessary to create or preserve it. They are content to lose politely.

I’m not. You’re not. We’re nationalists for a nation not yet born. We’re soldiers in a political war for civilizational survival. We’re not staffers in a moribund movement trying to get a lobbying job. Rush Limbaugh influenced me. He influenced all of us, even if you don’t fully realize it, but he was never part of what we’re building.

I’ll always remember how Rush would make my friends and me laugh, I will marvel at his skill, and admire his bravura. I wouldn’t be here were it not for him. White advocates have a lot to learn from his rhetorical approach.

Unfortunately, we have nothing to learn from his ideas: his patriotism for a country that has ceased to exist, his repetition of clichés about “free enterprise” and “limited government,” his refusal to talk about race. There is no more time to play coy; the clock nears midnight. Rush remained silent when there was nothing to lose.

Rush Limbaugh failed, either because of timidity or intellectual shortcomings, but we should be charitable to his memory. He taught us an important lesson. Even in mortal combat, we can laugh at our foes and mock their pretensions. It’s all they deserve, and it’s the best tribute I can think of for America’s Anchorman.

Rush Limbaugh, RIP. I didn’t expect to say this, but I will miss him.

Talent Returned to God: Rush Limbaugh – American Renaissance (amren.com)

Talent Returned to God – Rush Limbaugh.docx